Every change to a score, a criterion, or the way the Machine Intelligence Score is calculated, with the date it took effect and the reason for it.
Scores on this site are recomputed when the rubric behind them is corrected. That means a figure recorded here in one month may not match the one published the next. Rather than revise quietly, every such change is listed below.
This page records history; it does not make it. Nothing here changes a score on its own. Read the methodology for how the current scores are calculated.
The methodology described a 1–10 scale while eight of the criteria define 0 as a legal outcome and 22 published scores were 0. The scale is 0–10, and the pages now say so. Separately, the scoring table on this page is now generated from the same definition the build validates every score against, so the rubric a reader is shown and the rule the scores are held to cannot drift apart. That check found that a majority of scores sit on values their own rubric does not define — a 7 on a criterion offering only 10, 5 and 0, for example. Correcting those needs each one re-examined against evidence rather than snapped to the nearest allowed value, so the count is now recorded and the build refuses to let it grow. No score changed in this release.
Each platform’s pricing was previously stated as fact with no source and no date. All 43 have now been checked against the vendor’s own pages, and each carries a citation saying where the figure came from and when it was last verified. Twenty-three were wrong or misleading and have been rewritten. The largest errors were in both directions: Vorne was published at about $1,995 per line when the vendor’s cheapest listed model is $4,490; Scytec, Evocon, JITbase, Guidewheel and Tractian were described as quote-only when each publishes a full price list. AssetWatch’s $199 was a one-time 30-day trial fee, not a monthly rate. Where a figure could not be traced to any source, including one of our own, it has been removed rather than left standing.
The rankings page sorted on a second composite, overallScore, which followed no published rule and matched the criteria mean for 8 of 43 platforms. It has been removed. The Machine Intelligence Score is now the only score the site publishes, and it is what every ranking and sort reads.
Four changes to what gets measured. Commercial terms were five criteria measuring close to one thing, so dimensions are now weighted by how much their criteria actually vary independently rather than by how many there are. Predictive Maintenance and OEE Tracking were averaged together despite moving in opposite directions, and are now scored separately. Edge/Cloud was removed: it published 43 scores backed by six documented facts. Ownership Model was rescored to measure whether a buyer gets a choice of capital treatment, rather than preferring one purchasing model over another.
The site published a scoring formula its own numbers did not follow — only 7 of 43 platforms matched it. All 43 are now computed from the weights published on the methodology page, and the build fails if they ever drift again. 38 of the 43 published scores changed as a result, by as much as 16 points up and 12 down. No platform’s underlying criteria ratings were edited; only the arithmetic that turns them into a composite.